Complementary System to Patents

--- Continued:

The result would optimally be a huge number of publicized ideas that currently don't benefit anyone. Obviously huge ideas would still be patented just like before but a great number of other ideas exist that are not going to make a huge profit for the inventor currently but could make a huge impact if the ideas were widely adopted.

For example, recently there was a news item about this invention that uses multiple ultrasounds concentrated to a focal point inside a person that could be revolutionary to medicine (you could kill a brain tumour without even opening up the skull etc). I invented that years ago but I didn't pursue it. Mostly because I know nothing about building ultrasound devices and I don't have the money to patent every idea I get or hire people to do R&D for me.

But if there was a website where I could have described the idea and have some probability of a monetary reward, I probably would have publicized it. Same goes for dozen of other ideas I currently have and I get millions of other people have ideas all the time as well. Even small ideas could evolve into huge ideas or just make a huge impact if adopted widely.

File: if it costs zero to produce ideas, then zero is how much idea producers will be paid.jpg (21KB, 614x410px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 614x410px

>It would consist of a website where anyone can submit their ideas for free.
>Site users could rate ideas, mostly to make finding good ideas easier since people would submit lots of crappy ideas (because submitting is free and there's a potential payoff).
>a public/private fund that would reward good ideas (maybe partially based on user ratings, or ratings from experts).
That's so crazy it just might work.

>>9003252
I'm a farmer. I invent shit nearly every fucking day. I don't think for once any of it will make me money beyond the specific application it was intended.

All your idea does is ensure the good stuff everyone submits gets ripped off ASAP and patented legitly by a law firm for whatever Jew is employing them.

>>9003504
AFAIK, you can't patent stuff that has already been publicized.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter much if the inventor is left with nothing and some Jew gets richer. The inventor is not getting any richer by keeping the invention to himself anyway. If he thinks it's worth patenting he should do that instead of using the website. With the website he might get some credit, something to write on his CV or brag about at parties at the very least. Probability of making lots of money for the inventor is probably low unless the idea is top-notch but it might be a fun kind of lottery.

What might matter more is that ideas get exposure and some of them might make the world a better place for both the inventor and the Jew. Single ideas can be huge but maybe a million smaller ideas makes a bigger impact overall. Kinda like if you can think of a way to save 1 dollar in a design of a car and it amounts to millions because there will be millions of those cars produced.

Perhaps the site should have a third option for making money - individuals could reward any idea they like (Kickstarter-style except there's no expectation of some finished product). If a farmer submits a useful invention and other farmers make use of it they might give you a tip. Lots of farmers out there so it might amount to a large sum.

That sounds like a great idea, OP.

You should patent it.

>>9003252
>First, any company using an idea would have a moral incentive (also equalling a public relations incentive) to grant some reasonable amount of the profits to the inventor whose idea helped their business.
That, my friend, is not how the world works.

>>9003667
>AFAIK, you can't patent stuff that has already been publicized.

You have a lot to learn about intellectual property law.

>>9003252
I heard about some plans some time back in my country to replace patents in medicine with rewards from the government. Don't known why it didn't work out, sounded like a good idea.

>>9005420
Which country?

And that sounds a bit dodgy since pharma patents can be extremely valuable, in the billion dollar order of magnitude.

>>9003252
Patents are cancer and should be abolished. The only reason they exist is to allow big business to prevent competition.

Reminder that 3D printing as we know it today is a technology from the 80's that we're only now starting to see because the patents are expiring.

>>9005441
OK, so who will spend billions over 15 - 20 years developing new medicine if anyone can just copy their discoveries freely?

>>9005487
I'm not the person you commented to but I think there should be no patents in medicine or at least we should use some other system besides the current one. It's stupid how a pill that costs $0.10 to make is sold for $100 and then someone cannot afford it and is left to suffer with a disease. Of course companies need to cover R&D but there must be a better way.

Maybe it should be possible to nullify the patents in medicine by paying 5 times R&D costs to the patent owner. Some government or charity or UN or other big player might choose to do so with AIDS or cancer medicine for example. Maybe patents should expire automatically after profits hit 5-10 times R&D.

Governments could buy all profitable Big Pharmas and keep R&D at current levels and fund them using taxpayer money. It would essentially cost the same (at the scale of societies) while allowing poor people to get their meds. Might actually be good for the economy as a whole.

Movies & software and other intellectual property needs something similar also. A guy who makes 1 dollar a day can't possibly afford to buy a $20 movie or $100 software (even if it costs essentially no real world resources to replicate his copies). It would make him happier/more productive so we are not getting the optimal output from the products currently.

I bet there are solutions. No solution will be perfect but the current system is shit too.

>>9005540
>I bet there are solutions.

The solution is to go back to the patronage model. There are only two types of people who should be doing nonessential activities like making music or finding a cure for some disease: independently wealthy people and skilled workers who can win the favor of a rich patron. In the model you don't need to charge much or at all because you are already set for money up front. This also avoids the natural bloat and massive abuse that a government-run system would engender.

>>9005540
>I'm not the person you commented to but I think there should be no patents in medicine or at least we should use some other system besides the current one.
Fair enough but it is hard to see why we should change before we have any ideas what to replace it with.

> It's stupid how a pill that costs $0.10 to make is sold for $100 and then someone cannot afford it and is left to suffer with a disease.
That is just production cost with no consideration for overheads, investment, research, development, testing, clinical testing etc. The present system makes new medicine very expensive, sure, but normally the government subsidises this so the end user does not pay it directly.

>Of course companies need to cover R&D but there must be a better way.
Sure, that is the most expensive part, though clinical testing can be costly too. Everyone fears a new Thaliodmide.

>Maybe it should be possible to nullify the patents in medicine by paying 5 times R&D costs to the patent owner.
That will still kill the companies. While actual figures remain trade secrets one expect a company to start 100 new projects per year and one by one they turn out not to work or have nasty side effects. In the end perhaps one will reach the shelves. Other times a late stage trial shows dangerous side effect and the entire investment goes down the toilet. Other times, like with Vioxx, people try to keep quiet.

>>9005561
(cont...)
>Some government or charity or UN or other big player might choose to do so with AIDS or cancer medicine for example. Maybe patents should expire automatically after profits hit 5-10 times R&D.
Same issue as above. Companies would then just kill off all R&D and live happily ever after on generics.

>Governments could buy all profitable Big Pharmas and keep R&D at current levels and fund them using taxpayer money. It would essentially cost the same (at the scale of societies) while allowing poor people to get their meds. Might actually be good for the economy as a whole.
World wide nationalisation? That is dramatic.

>Movies & software and other intellectual property needs something similar also. A guy who makes 1 dollar a day can't possibly afford to buy a $20 movie or $100 software (even if it costs essentially no real world resources to replicate his copies). It would make him happier/more productive so we are not getting the optimal output from the products currently.
Again an artist can have many duds and only a single hit.

>I bet there are solutions. No solution will be perfect but the current system is shit too.
I am not dismissing that possibility. I just don't see a good solution.

>>9003504
>I'm a farmer. I invent shit nearly every fucking day.
I just checked. There were about 100,000 patent applications filed in the field of agriculture last year. And it is growing by about 10,000 every year.